Adam Elkus has written a thoughtful and thought-provoking article about civilian-military relations, The End of Supreme Command FPIF Policy Report 06/22/07:
Since World War II, presidents have had to contain military men eager for personal glory or hell-bent on employing "worst-case" solutions for intractable problems. There will always be Curtis LeMays and Douglas MacArthurs, powerful men who challenge civilian control in favor of harsh measures. They have always been brought to heel because of the deeply ingrained legitimacy of civilian control. Yet after Iraq, the MacArthurs and LeMays will increasingly take their case to the people, who just might be inclined to agree with them.
The legitimacy of civilian control over the military will take decades to recover from the disaster of Iraq. Military activism in the political process could become increasingly commonplace, with politicians unable to convince the public of their ability to decide security matters without the public endorsement of retired or active military figures. And whoever sits in the White House in 2009 will have to deal with the fact that their authority over the military has been diminished. The militarization of U.S. foreign policy – as well as border policy and even domestic affairs – has accelerated during the Bush years. Without a civilian check, this dangerous process could have even more drastic consequences. The founding fathers looked to the example of Oliver Cromwell, the English general who seized power during the Civil War, and saw the dangers of a military that could overpower its civilian masters. (my emphasis)
The part I bolded is the real concern, not that military leaders would try to stage a military coup or something of that sort.
But the notion that our civilian government should be constrained in its options by the expressed preferences of the sitting military leaders is one consequence growing the idolization of the military that the Republican Party and particularly the Christian Right have practiced since the Vietnam War. In a speech just today at GrafTech International, Bush said, "And I'm going to remind the people in the audience today that troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C., and that we've got a plan to lead to victory." (my emphasis)
No, in reality it's Bush the Decider who decides what the troop levels are going to be, no matter how much he takes into account the advice of generals or his Vice Presidential Branch of government. But this posturing to make it sound like the President is just following the advice of his generals, whatever they want, is a product of the Republicans' particular style of macho posturing around military issues.
It's also fed very significantly by the stab-in-the-back legend about the Vietnam War, which comes from that alternative reality where the military won the Vietnam War but the gutless Congress and wimpy public threw our glorious generals' victory away.
As we know, Cheney and Bush have been willing to toss aside military advice they didn't like. After nearly nearly four years of being told that the military was perfectly satisfied with the strategy and the number of troops they had, Bush sacked his Iraq commander and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman and appointed Gen. Petraeus, who had a new strategy.
This claim that Cheney and Bush are just doing what the generals say should be done is not only idolization of the military. At the same time, it's a ducking of their responsibility. Cheney and Bush are making the decisions. And Bush as the President is ultimately responsible for them. As Eikus writes:
Bush's allies in the media and the press have also fetishized General David Petraeus as the savior of American involvement in Iraq. The motivation behind this is political: the president wishes to hide behind uniformed surrogates in order to evade responsibility for the continuing strategic disasters that have been a hallmark of his presidency.
It was a sign of the development that Eikus describes back in 2004 when John Kerry's introduction at the Democratic National Convention heavily emphasized his wartime exploits. When Kerry came out, he saluted military-style and declared that he was "reporting for duty". Eikus writes:
For instance, the Democratic rebuttal to President Bush's April radio address was delivered not by a Democratic politician but by retired General William Odom. The anti-war opposition, finding it difficult to oppose Bush on its own terms, has enlisted retired generals to fight on their behalf in the media. The anti-war movement leveled the charge of "chickenhawk" at conservative hawks who never served in the military, which was an accurate response to hawks hypocritically impugning the patriotism of Bush critics. But in the long run this tactic only served to reinforce the public perception of the military as morally superior to civilian politicians.
Military idolatry, especially as promoted by the Christian Right, is unhealthy for a democracy. It also puts military leaders and even soldiers in a position they should not be, where they are pressured to make public statements in their official roles promoting the political line of the current administration.
Wars and military spending are very much the public's business. We should certainly give serious consideration to the positions current and former senior military officials take. But the public also shouldn't turn off our brains when we're listening to them. There is normally considerable debate within the military over major issues, including passionate competition for resources and visibility among the various services.
And the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and decide on military appropriations because it's the public's business. No President should be out there saying, "troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C." It's ducking his own responsibility and failing to uphold a basic Constitutional principle of democratic government. Under the Constitution, Congress and the President are the deciders on military affairs. Not the generals.
On this topic, see also Andrew Bacevich The Activist Soldier (linked in Eikus' article) Atlantic Monthly 03/28/07 and Joint FailureBoston Globe 06/17/07.
Curtis "Nuke" LeMay (1906-1990)
